The Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation has explored the idea of creating an insurance-based framework to fund long-term care for elderly citizens and people with disabilities. This concept is discussed in the article titled “Approaches to the implementation of a long-term care system for elderly citizens and disabled people in Russia in comparison with other countries,” published in the journal Economic Development of Russia. The analysis argues that a formal insurance mechanism could supply a stable stream of funds for care services, addressing gaps in current financing models.
According to the study, Russia currently struggles with insufficient financing for long-term care because funding largely relies on regional budgets supplemented by federal subsidies. The authors contend that shifting toward insurance would align Russia with international practices and create a sustainable financing channel for ongoing care needs. The article emphasizes the need to rethink the existing mix of funding sources to ensure predictable, adequate resources for both elderly and disabled populations.
The authors examine how other nations organize funding for long-term care as a point of comparison. They note that in Japan and France, long-term care provisions are integrated into the health insurance system, ensuring that services can be accessed within a broader medical framework. In countries such as South Korea, Germany, and Israel, care for the elderly and disabled often falls under social insurance arrangements. In these models, service funding arises from a blend of taxes, user charges, and budget transfers, with governance designed to balance universal access and financial sustainability. The comparative analysis highlights that diverse funding mixes can support high-quality care, even as administrative structures vary across countries.
On the basis of this cross-country review, the article recommends introducing voluntary long-term care insurance in Russia. The proposed approach envisions individuals contributing to a private or semi-private insurance pool that would fund their own future care needs when required. A notable feature of the proposal is a cap on the insurance premium, with the rate not to exceed 1.5 percent of the insured’s income in order to maintain affordability while preserving the incentive to participate. This framework aims to empower citizens to secure personal protection and reduce the financial burden on public budgets during periods of high demand for long-term care services.
The authors also discuss practical implications for implementation, including the importance of phased adoption, clear eligibility rules, and transparent governance. They address potential objections related to voluntary participation, risk pooling, and the capacity of the insurance market to deliver timely, high-quality care. The analysis suggests that successful deployment would require harmonizing insurance product design with existing public programs, ensuring coordination between regional authorities and federal bodies, and maintaining safeguards that protect vulnerable groups from coverage gaps. Ownership of data, auditing standards, and performance metrics are identified as critical elements for maintaining accountability and trust in the system. (Source: Economic Development of Russia, Approaches to the implementation of a long-term care system for elderly citizens and disabled people in Russia in comparison with other countries.)
Overall, the discussion reflects a broader shift toward diversifying and securing long-term care funding in Russia. By considering international experience and outlining a concrete, affordable insurance option, the authors contribute to a policy conversation about how to sustain care services in the face of demographic pressures and fiscal constraints. The emphasis remains on creating a resilient framework that delivers predictable funding, improves access to services, and supports the well-being of elderly and disabled residents across the country.
Notes on the policy debate indicate that the goal is not merely to add another line item to budgets but to establish a coherent system that integrates care financing with health and social protections. The proposed voluntary model could serve as a stepping stone toward a more expansive income-adjusted or contributory scheme, should future conditions warrant broader participation. The analysis underscores the practicality of foreign experience while adapting it to Russia’s administrative landscape and fiscal realities. In this sense, the article functions as a strategic guide for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers seeking to understand how long-term care funding can be organized in a way that is both financially viable and socially responsible based on comparative evidence and careful consideration of national context.